1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES BOWELL, Case No. 2:19-cv-07357-TJH-MAA

12 Petitioner, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 MARCUS POLLARD, Warden, JUDGE 15 Respondent. 16 17 18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Petition, the other 19 records on file herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States 20 Magistrate Judge (“R&R,” ECF No. 21). 21 The Court also has reviewed Petitioner’s objections to the Report and 22 Recommendation, which the Court received and filed on January 2, 2020. 23 (“Objections,” ECF No. 22.) As required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the R&R to 25 which Petitioner specifically has objected. 26 Petitioner contends that he does not need authorization from the Ninth 27 Circuit to file the instant Petition because this Court may reopen his 2003 habeas 28 case, Bowell v. Lamarque, No. 2:03-cv-01459-TJH-SH, pursuant to a recent United 1 || States Supreme Court case. (Objections at 1-2.) The Court declines to consider 2 || this argument, which Petitioner first raised in his Objections. See United States v. 3 || Howell,

(9th Cir. 2000). Petitioner has not filed a motion to 4 || reopen the 2003 case or a motion for relief from the judgment in that case. In any 5 || event, Petitioner previously has been advised that he must show, within a 6 || reasonable time after entry of judgment, extraordinary circumstances to justify the 7 || extraordinary relief of reopening of a final judgment. F.g., Order Denying Motion 8 || for Relief from Judgment 3, Bowell v. Lamarque, No. 2:03-cv-01459-TJH-SH 9 || (C.D. Cal. July 25, 2012), ECF No. 81 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 and Gonzales v. 10 || Crosby,

(2005)). 11 Petitioner also reiterates arguments regarding the merits of his claims and 12 || provides reasons why the Court should consider the Petition in light of new case 13 || law. (See Objections at 1-4.) This Court is divested from jurisdiction to entertain 14 || these arguments unless and until the Ninth Circuit gives Petitioner leave to file a 15 || second or successive petition. Burton v. Stewart,

(2007). 16 The Court finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. The Court 17 || concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the 18 || United States Magistrate Judge, and overrules the Objections. 19 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) the Report and Recommendation of 20 || the Magistrate Judge is accepted and adopted; (2) Respondent’s Motion to Dismiss 21 || (ECF No. 15) is granted; (3) Petitioner’s “Motion[s] to Incorporate” (ECF No. 19) 22 || are denied as moot; and (4) Judgment shall be entered denying the Petition and 23 || dismissing this action without prejudice. 24 25 || DATED: February 10, 2020 Yt CEfle 26 7. 27 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28